Political Crossfire Forums

[Tetracide]

Please take note that the forum rules have been updated. While you have a responsibility to read it in its entirety, these are a few of the additions that have been added, as well as some points that need to be reiterated:Signatures cannot be larger than 400x200 pixels.
Articles posted to start a topic must be accompanied by a source and a substantive opinion.
Posting unrelated material in a thread (a.k.a. “thread hijacking”) is prohibited.
Keep your posts respectful.
REPORT POSTS/THREADS VIOLATING FORUM RULES.
New type of trolling added: Baiting other members on a personal or political level is prohibited.
Derogatory comments will be subject to edit or removal.Thank you for listening. Happy debating!

[LostSoul3412]

Already laying down the law? :lol: :wink:

[Nathyn]

They just need to have a proper ignore feature. An ignore feature itself isn't good enough for maintaining high-quality discussion (see ProtestWarrior.com's forums to see what I mean). But it certainly would be a lot more beneficial than creating rules against ambiguous ideas as "baiting other members on a personal or political level " and then enforcing them, which inevitably results in confusion by users and accusations of political bias, whether real or not.

I mean, why not make a rule against baiting others to flame-bait, or baiting to bait to bait to bait? :lol:

Someone here asserted that there's no actual need for an ignore feature, because I should be able to control myself. Well, surely, according to that same reasoning, "flamebait," is nonsense.

[TheGirlNextDoor]

They look good Tetracide. :tu:

[Tetracide]

Nathyn wrote: They just need to have a proper ignore feature. An ignore feature itself isn't good enough for maintaining high-quality discussion (see ProtestWarrior.com's forums to see what I mean). But it certainly would be a lot more beneficial than creating rules against ambiguous ideas as "baiting other members on a personal or political level " and then enforcing them, which inevitably results in confusion by users and accusations of political bias, whether real or not.

I mean, why not make a rule against baiting others to flame-bait, or baiting to bait to bait to bait? :lol:

Someone here asserted that there's no actual need for an ignore feature, because I should be able to control myself. Well, surely, according to that same reasoning, "flamebait," is nonsense.
Not wanting to read someone's posts because you don't like the person and not wanting to read someone's post because they are inflamitory are two different things. Baiting has no place in debate and lowers the quality of it.

[Nathyn]

Tetracide wrote: Nathyn wrote: They just need to have a proper ignore feature. An ignore feature itself isn't good enough for maintaining high-quality discussion (see ProtestWarrior.com's forums to see what I mean). But it certainly would be a lot more beneficial than creating rules against ambiguous ideas as "baiting other members on a personal or political level " and then enforcing them, which inevitably results in confusion by users and accusations of political bias, whether real or not.

I mean, why not make a rule against baiting others to flame-bait, or baiting to bait to bait to bait? :lol:

Someone here asserted that there's no actual need for an ignore feature, because I should be able to control myself. Well, surely, according to that same reasoning, "flamebait," is nonsense.
Not wanting to read someone's posts because you don't like the person and not wanting to read someone's post because they are inflamitory are two different things. Baiting has no place in debate and lowers the quality of it.
You need to clarify: You're talking about inflammatory now. But the rule you're creating deals with baiting inflammatory comments.

Technically, you could bait someone into flaming by just responding calmly and politely. It's called "killing someone with kindness." The more calm and polite you act, the more angry they get.

Anyway, it wasn't a matter of personal dislike, but that the person's remarks were always childish, immature, and unfounded. I don't say that out of partisanship and anyone that reads my posts should know I'm independent and unpartisan. But rather, it was from the one-sided, cocky, and abrasive way that they presented themselves. Such remarks make me want to flame, therefore wouldn't they technically be "flame-baiting"?

Hell, political discourse, period, makes people want to flame if they're speaking with someone they disagree with. If you enforced it to the extreme, you'd ban almost everyone for flame-baiting.

If a particular person's comments regularly make someone angry, it would be far easier to just give them the liberty of ignoring them rather than relying upon outside subjective interpretation over each person's feelings and what led to those feelings, especially since emotion doesn't communicate perfectly into text.

[Tetracide]

I'd be happy to explain further. I want everyone to understand this new rule, so we can maintain the civility of these forums.

Moderators are going to have to use their judgment on these types of warnings, just like they do with other types of warnings. If a member is being disrespectful or condescending in a way that is promoting other members to be personally offended and/or respond negatively. Here is an example:

Member A wrote: President Bush has taken steps to securing the border, only the mainstream media and other liberal fronts have diminished these accomplishments by not reporting the successes, and only reporting the failures. Member B wrote: :lol: Yeah right, blame all of BushCo's problems on the mainstream media. Why don't you get your nose out of the Limbaugh Letter and prove your ridiculous points, or is that too much to ask from a righy like you? Member A wrote: f**k you ass hole. I'm not subscribed to the Limbaugh letter, and it is you who has shown that you are incapable of debating because of your liberal short-sightedness. Screw you!
This is Déjà vu for a lot of moderators, including myself. Both Member A and Member B would in in violation of the forum rules. Member B would be warned for baiting other members into a negative conversation, and Member A would be warned for name calling, depending on the moderator of course. There are many different variables when issuing a warning.

To address Naythn's concerns, being respectful is not a form of baiting at all. Another example:

Member A wrote: Mr. Bush and his administration have walked all over the United States Constitution. Member B wrote: WHAT?! That's an absurd idea to hold. The President has done nothing to circumvent your freedoms. Mind telling me which freedom you had in 1999 that you don't today? Member A wrote: I think you misunderstood my statement. When I say that Bush has destroyed the United States Constitution, I mean that he has invaded the right to free speech by enacting and defending the NSA wiretapping program, undermined Americans' right to privacy by approving the Patriot Act, and belittled the right to property by passing Eminent Domain. Member B wrote: You're full of s**t you know that? I don't have comprehension problems, alright? I'm an English major, and I don't need a lesson from someone like you. Second, you didn't answer my question, like I knew you wouldn't. What freedoms have you personally lost? Humm?? :roll: Pathetic.
In this case, Member B would be warned for name calling and inflammatory language. Member A however has not broken any rules at all. Does that make more sense?

[Nathyn]

Tetracide wrote: I'd be happy to explain further. I want everyone to understand this new rule, so we can maintain the civility of these forums.

Moderators are going to have to use their judgment on these types of warnings, just like they do with other types of warnings. If a member is being disrespectful or condescending in a way that is promoting other members to be personally offended and/or respond negatively. Here is an example:

Member A wrote: President Bush has taken steps to securing the border, only the mainstream media and other liberal fronts have diminished these accomplishments by not reporting the successes, and only reporting the failures. Member B wrote: :lol: Yeah right, blame all of BushCo's problems on the mainstream media. Why don't you get your nose out of the Limbaugh Letter and prove your ridiculous points, or is that too much to ask from a righy like you? Member A wrote: f**k you ass hole. I'm not subscribed to the Limbaugh letter, and it is you who has shown that you are incapable of debating because of your liberal short-sightedness. Screw you!
This is Déjà vu for a lot of moderators, including myself. Both Member A and Member B would in in violation of the forum rules. Member B would be warned for baiting other members into a negative conversation, and Member A would be warned for name calling, depending on the moderator of course. There are many different variables when issuing a warning.
Member B is making a personal attack on member A, which is already against the rules.

And if member A can't restrain himself from saying, "f**k you ass hole," when someone makes such comments, shouldn't he ought to have the ability to ignore such people before-the-fact?

It would make the forum more enjoyable for them and make your job easier too.

[Tetracide]

Clicking the ignore button doesn’t make the infraction go away. The ignore function has nothing to do with this rule anyway.

There are a lot of posts like what Member B posted, and it isn't healthy for debate. This new rule simply points out that questions posed like this: "Why don't you get your nose out of the Limbaugh Letter and prove your ridiculous points, or is that too much to ask from a righy like you?"

... are not allowed anymore and will be met with Mod action.

[Rankor and Pissing]

If you have to use the ignore button, you've already got some debating problems.

[Lumina]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Already laying down the law? :lol: :wink:

Yep, and doing a good job too. Ditto Leftneckredwing.

Boys, there's new deputies in town!

[Wolverine]

Is this baiting?

Wolv: Regulated means supplied.
Anti: How do you figure "regulated" means supplied dumb@ss? Look at a dictionary.
Wolv: *posts Article 1*

Would this be concidered baiting? I am "baiting" a member into taking a particular approach to an arguemnt, then posting something to own them.

Just wondering, I use this tactic quite a bit. :lol:

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Nathyn wrote:
Member B is making a personal attack on member A, which is already against the rules.

And if member A can't restrain himself from saying, "f**k you ass hole," when someone makes such comments, shouldn't he ought to have the ability to ignore such people before-the-fact?

It would make the forum more enjoyable for them and make your job easier too.

People already have that option.

[Nathyn]

TheGirlNextDoor wrote: Nathyn wrote:
Member B is making a personal attack on member A, which is already against the rules.

And if member A can't restrain himself from saying, "f**k you ass hole," when someone makes such comments, shouldn't he ought to have the ability to ignore such people before-the-fact?

It would make the forum more enjoyable for them and make your job easier too.

People already have that option.


You still see their threads, right along with their names.

And you constantly see this:



An ignore feature which constantly harasses you, "Go on, unignore them. Go on, I dare you, wussy. Unignore them!! COME ON!!!" is not an ignore feature.

[Tetracide]

Wolverine wrote: Is this baiting?

Wolv: Regulated means supplied.
Anti: How do you figure "regulated" means supplied dumb@ss? Look at a dictionary.
Wolv: *posts Article 1*

Would this be concidered baiting? I am "baiting" a member into taking a particular approach to an arguemnt, then posting something to own them.

Just wondering, I use this tactic quite a bit. :lol:
No. But whoever "Anti" is might be worthy of a warning for flaming.

[Infinite911911]

Tetracide wrote:
[*]Keep your posts respectful.


Can you give me an example of one? What's a unrespectful post? And who's the judge of it and why? I ask because sometimes typing things come out in a way you didn't want it to.

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Nathyn wrote: TheGirlNextDoor wrote: Nathyn wrote:
Member B is making a personal attack on member A, which is already against the rules.

And if member A can't restrain himself from saying, "f**k you ass hole," when someone makes such comments, shouldn't he ought to have the ability to ignore such people before-the-fact?

It would make the forum more enjoyable for them and make your job easier too.

People already have that option.


You still see their threads, right along with their names.

And you constantly see this:



An ignore feature which constantly harasses you, "Go on, unignore them. Go on, I dare you, wussy. Unignore them!! COME ON!!!" is not an ignore feature.

Sorry, I wouldn't know.. I don't have anyone on ignore.

[spearsy23]

Infinite911911 wrote: Tetracide wrote:
[*]Keep your posts respectful.


Can you give me an example of one? What's a unrespectful post? And who's the judge of it and why? I ask because sometimes typing things come out in a way you didn't want it to.
Who's the judge of it? :bnghd:

This is the moderator team, they will be moderating your posts today.

[Nathyn]

LOL, what is "respectful"? What kind of a question is that?

[TheGirlNextDoor]

I would say being disrespectful is speaking [posting] to someone how you yourself would not like to be spoken [posted] to. If you don't want anyone calling your opinions childish and retarded, then I wouldn't call someone elses opinions childish or retarded. Have to give a little respect to get some, imho anyway.